Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

7 December 2010 Last updated at 11:16 ET
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange refused bail
 

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has told a court he will fight extradition to Sweden.

[img_r]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/50331000/jpg/_50331755_010802095-2.jpg[/img_r]Bail was refused and the Australian, who denies [that he] sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, was remanded in custody pending a hearing next week.

A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of Mr Assange fleeing.

A Wikileaks spokesman said Mr Assange's arrest was an attack on media freedom.

Mr Stephens said after the court appearance he would be applying again for bail.

He also claimed the charges were "politically motivated" and he pointed out the judge had said he was keen to see the evidence against Mr Assange.

Kristinn Hrafnsson said it would not stop release of more secret files and told Reuters on Tuesday: "Wikileaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before.

"Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."

Secret locations

He said Wikileaks was being operated by a group in London and other secret locations.

Five people, including journalist John Pilger, film director Ken Loach and Jemima Khan, the sister of Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, stood up in court offering to put up sureties.

But District Judge Howard Riddle refused bail for fear Mr Assange would flee the country and he was remanded in custody until 14 December.

Gemma Lindfield, for the Swedish authorities, gave details of the allegations against Mr Assange.

One of the charges is that he had unprotected sex with a woman, identified only as Miss A, when she insisted he use a condom.

Another is that he had unprotected sex with another woman, Miss W, while she was asleep.

Mr Assange, who was accompanied by Australian consular officials, initially refused to say where he lived but eventually gave an address in Australia.

Scotland Yard said Mr Assange was arrested by appointment at a London police station at 0930 GMT.

Police contacted his lawyer, Mark Stephens, on Monday night after receiving a European arrest warrant from the Swedish authorities.

An earlier warrant, issued last month, had not been filled in correctly.

At a full hearing, which is not likely to take place for some weeks, Mr Assange will be able to raise his arguments against extradition.

The 'fast-track' European arrest warrant system is based on the concept that all the participating countries have legal systems which meet similar standards, and fully respect human rights.

In other words, it is assumed a person will get an equally fair trial in any of these countries.

If the accusation from the requesting state is valid, the grounds for opposing extradition are very limited.

Mr Assange has come in for criticism in the last week for the revelations made on Wikileaks.

On Monday Foreign Secretary William Hague criticised the website for publishing details of sensitive sites, including some in the UK, saying they could be targeted by terrorists.

Former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has described Mr Assange as "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands".

Wikileaks was forced to switch to a Swiss host server after several US internet service providers refused to handle it.

It has also come under cyber attack and several companies, including PayPal and Amazon, have refused to supply it.

On Tuesday another company, Visa, also suspended all transactions involving Wikileaks.

Extradition can be extremely swift if the accused waives his legal rights.

But some cases, such as the extradition of computer hacker Gary McKinnon to the United States, have been going on for years because of legal challenges.

Game of cat and mouse

A European arrest warrant is designed to speed up the process but there can be delays.

Last week a district judge finally agreed to extradite British businessman Ian Griffin to France, 18 months after he was arrested for the murder of his girlfriend in a Paris hotel. Mr Griffin had been claiming he was mentally ill.

Gerard Batten, a UKIP MEP, said the Assange case highlighted the dangers of the European arrest warrant, because the judge has no power to listen to the evidence to judge if there is a prime facie case.

He said: "What concerns me is that it could be used against political dissidents. I don't know of the quality of the evidence in Mr Assange's case but it does seem that he is involved in political turmoil and intrigue and there are a lot of people keen to shut him up and there is nothing a court in the UK can do to look at the evidence before they extradite him."

Mr Assange is an Australian citizen and his supporters have written an open letter to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, asking her to protect him.

One of the signatories, prominent barrister Julian Burnside QC said: "First and foremost Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who is entitled to the protection of his country and does not deserve to be betrayed by his country.

"Julia Gillard has been making it virtually impossible for Assange to return to Australia where he is entitled to be. And she has even threatened to cancel his passport. That is an outrageous stance to take."

His words were echoed by Mr Pilger, who is also Australian, who said the threat to remove his passport smacked of "totalitarianism".



THE CHARGES

Unlawful coercion - used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner.
Sexual molestation - had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom
Deliberate molestation - molested Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep



If it turns out that these charges can be substantiated, Assange deserves the harshest punishment the law allows. I do find the timing awfully suspicious, however. What are you willing to bet that in a few months it will come to light that both of these women are operatives for one of the governments Assange has pissed off?

I find it more than a little disheartening how quick American companies are to sever ties with their customers when the going gets rough. All it takes is a little pressure from the feds and poof, their customers are persona non grata.

By the way, I never thought the day would come that I would have to correct the grammar in an opening paragraph of a BBC article!
UserPostedImage
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago
Foster is going to call me a commie bastard for this, but ...

IMO the state should be held to higher standard of transparency than the rest of us, not the other way around. If the state wishes to collect and use all the information about people the way that it does, then it should be wholly unable to call "foul!" when someone else does the same.

Thanks to technological change, widespread acceptance of government intrusiveness, and all the rest, we live in an extremely transparent world. Well, if you want us to be transparent and naked, then you should be willing to be at least as naked.

And, and this is what is really going to get me in trouble, if you agree voluntarily to work in the shadows, or to work under the control of generals and other politicians, then you should be aware that you are going to be put at risk when "policies" and their discussions get made public.

I don't likely agree with much of the politics of the Wikileaks people. (It's so rare that I agree with people on politics that I have to assume I'm on the other side from everyone.) But there is a part of me that admires them.

I don't believe in "official secrets."

Not in a world that doesn't allow private ones.

Official secrets just protect the powerful and their ability to manipulate our fears.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
Well said as ever, Wade.

It always amazes me how much faith people seem to have in government. There's this underlying notion that government knows better than we do.

I've been seeing a lot of people saying lately that diplomats need secrecy to conduct their business efficiently, and that therefore these disclosures are a great betrayal. How do they know that diplomats need the veil of secrecy? Because, well, the government says they do. They also assume that there must be a legitimate reason any time the government chooses to classify a document, instead of insisting that the government provide a compelling, specific reason for the imposition of secrecy. They seem take the government unquestioningly at its word, rather than asking themselves why in a society with a representative government, they're allowing the government to police itself. I question how important the veil of secrecy is to the majority of actions that take place under the auspices of government. I especially question the notion that material is always classified for appropriate reasons. The power of classification strikes me as a ripe field for abuse, since virtually any misdeed or agenda can be cloaked in the magic garment of "national security" and hid from view. Classification wouldn't bother me nearly so much if there were some sort of accountability mechanism in place, but by definition there cannot be.

In an era in which the government views anyone who insists on personal privacy with suspicion and distrust, the government should be allowed no more secrecy than that which it is willing to grant its citizens.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
14 years ago

Foster is going to call me a commie bastard for this, but ...

IMO the state should be held to higher standard of transparency than the rest of us, not the other way around. If the state wishes to collect and use all the information about people the way that it does, then it should be wholly unable to call "foul!" when someone else does the same.

"Wade" wrote:



Ah. Thank you Wade. Good to see someone else out there "gets it."


Thanks to technological change, widespread acceptance of government intrusiveness, and all the rest, we live in an extremely transparent world. Well, if you want us to be transparent and naked, then you should be willing to be at least as naked.

"Wade" wrote:



Exactly. If TSA employees worked naked, then I'd be more than comfortable to go through their metal detectors naked. This is something a lot of people just don't understand. It goes right over their heads. I'm using TSA because it's the most obvious example.


And, and this is what is really going to get me in trouble, if you agree voluntarily to work in the shadows, or to work under the control of generals and other politicians, then you should be aware that you are going to be put at risk when "policies" and their discussions get made public.

"Wade" wrote:



Nicolae Ceausescu was strung up and killed by the people. When this all comes crashing down (might actually happen in our lifetime with hyperinflation), it's going to happen here as well. And it will be a good thing. I don't have sympathy for jackbooted thugs. First person who says "but they're doing their job" is an idiot. I'll say that in advance.


I don't likely agree with much of the politics of the Wikileaks people. (It's so rare that I agree with people on politics that I have to assume I'm on the other side from everyone.) But there is a part of me that admires them.

I don't believe in "official secrets."

Not in a world that doesn't allow private ones.

Official secrets just protect the powerful and their ability to manipulate our fears.

"Wade" wrote:



Yup. My biggest fear has always been the police state. Look at history. Criminals may kill a dozen people. Police states kill millions.

I'm already the wrong skin color. I've been mistaken for gay probably 30-40 times. My hair's too long. I can't keep my mouth shut. And I listen to music that Senators' wives tried to ban. I'd be one of the first people killed.

Wow Wade. Wish I could give +10 for this but you'll have to settle for a +1.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Pack93z
14 years ago

Foster is going to call me a commie bastard for this, but ...

IMO the state should be held to higher standard of transparency than the rest of us, not the other way around. If the state wishes to collect and use all the information about people the way that it does, then it should be wholly unable to call "foul!" when someone else does the same.

Thanks to technological change, widespread acceptance of government intrusiveness, and all the rest, we live in an extremely transparent world. Well, if you want us to be transparent and naked, then you should be willing to be at least as naked.

And, and this is what is really going to get me in trouble, if you agree voluntarily to work in the shadows, or to work under the control of generals and other politicians, then you should be aware that you are going to be put at risk when "policies" and their discussions get made public.

I don't likely agree with much of the politics of the Wikileaks people. (It's so rare that I agree with people on politics that I have to assume I'm on the other side from everyone.) But there is a part of me that admires them.

I don't believe in "official secrets."

Not in a world that doesn't allow private ones.

Official secrets just protect the powerful and their ability to manipulate our fears.

"Wade" wrote:



This I agree wholeheartedly with and as echoed.. an excellent post.

On Zombie's TSA comment.. does anyone know the security process for the TSA agents themselves? They are required to pass the same requirements as the travelers themselves.. In our CWA airport.. they all must come through a security checkpoint themselves to report for their shift.. so they are "naked" just like the rest of us so to speak.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
zombieslayer
14 years ago
They get to see us naked, we don't see them naked. It's the whole thing of who polices the police? So the TSA polices themselves? Nice. That's not very transparent. So don't mean to be a jerk, amigo, but you kind of missed Wade's point.
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
I have read that in the early days of the TSA, the only background checks performed on agents was a credit check. I can't confirm this, and I imagine the procedures have been tightened up since then, but it did strike me as interesting.
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
14 years ago

They get to see us naked, we don't see them naked. It's the whole thing of who polices the police? So the TSA polices themselves? Nice. That's not very transparent. So don't mean to be a jerk, amigo, but you kind of missed Wade's point.

"zombieslayer" wrote:



No.. I agree with the transparency that we should hold the government to.. and that they shouldn't be in such a rush to cover the facts of war or running this country up for us to decide upon.

I never understood the moratorium on information being released as it was in the past.. been done for decades and isn't something new.

The TSA agents walk through the same machines we the passengers do.. in front of the waiting passengers.. only difference is we don't see at the screen. This is how I know what they have to do.. I watched them prior to hoping the first flight of the AM and asked about it as I was getting patted down and my leg was getting checked for explosives.

So should we put up a public screen so the fellow passengers can see everyone "naked", the TSA agents included?

Assumption that I missed the point apparently... because of a bias that I disagree with the principles of security on commercial flights from you, however even though I am not in favor of the "x-ray" machines as crossing the line?
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Pack93z
14 years ago
On the whom polices the police?

What do you propose as an alternative? No authority figures in society at all?

The structure isn't much different than a traditional company with employment.. the courts themselves are suppose to be independent from the the police by design. Your rights, even from the police, are intended to be defended by the courts themselves.

Corruption.. sure.. as there is with most forms of government and honestly private sector itself at all levels.

But that doesn't mean that all agents of the system are corrupt and "dirty".

I can't speak to your region of the country.. but I can mine. Here in rural North Central Wisconsin, not much is covered up and little isn't seen by the public eye via county boards which are staffed by residents of the community, word of mouth, coffee shops, and internet boards and newspaper columns such as Topix, Vox Pox and county board minutes.

If you feel you don't have a voice or the system is bankrupt.. then you have two choices in front of you.. move or help change it.

There is a reason, with kids and teaching them about life that I sort of shelter them to a region I can openly see my surroundings, teach them to develop solid life skills, and at times take them into metro areas so they can see not all life is as such here.

I and my wife sacrifice some of the things we want or desire in forms of culture and net income to ensure that I have as much control and visibility of my surroundings as possible, while raising the children. That most definitely will change once they have grown and become centered adults.

I can name and have a conversation with all but one of the village, county and the one state law enforcement and have a sense of the person. Established trust.

So yes.. I have a different view of the police and government than you.. by design.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
I don't think anyone is advocating an absence of authority figures (okay, maybe Wade is, but that's different). We just think, as do you, that the authorities shouldn't be able to claim privilege to protect their actions. I find the idea of "Executive privilege," for example, very troublesome.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (3h) : Notre Lame=Notre Dame, Luckeyes=Ohio State, Pedo St=Penn St
Zero2Cool (3h) : ... It clearly was not what we were supposed to be in, certainly."
Zero2Cool (3h) : Hafley says 3rd and 11 call there was a miscommunication.
Zero2Cool (4h) : The only team I know is Texas from that. Who are the other three?
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Notre Lame vs Pedo St tonight and the Luckeyes vs Texas tomorrow
Mucky Tundra (5h) : Stud
Zero2Cool (7h) : E. Cooper. Rookie of Month. Defense.
Mucky Tundra (8-Jan) : @AaronNagler · 2m Both Jordan Love and Malik Willis were Limited participants at Packers practice today.
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Johnson didn't make it until 2020. Ring 2023. 🤷 Personally, he should have been in years prior to Hall.
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : HUMP DAY
beast (8-Jan) : Guys that have a good shot at making the NFL Hall of Fame usually get into their teams pretty fast
beast (8-Jan) : Yeah, but is Kampman and the others in the NFL Hall of Fame?
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Johnson was Hall of Fame, 2020. Should haev been in Ring a year later, not three years.
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : I could be wrong there though
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Guys like Kampman, Tim Harris, Al Harris, etc all over 15 years. Hall of Fame is 5 year wait
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : I guess I see players in Packers Hall come way later
beast (8-Jan) : Yeah, usually teams hall of fames are a much lower bar than the NFL
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : is it uncommon for Hall before Ring?
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : S Xavier McKinney named first-team All-Pro by NFLPA
beast (8-Jan) : I missed it, sorry, but he got into the NFL Hall of Fame years before that
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Jones took his sweet ole time!
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Yeah, he's in the ring of honor, just saw video and his name is up there
Zero2Cool (8-Jan) : Didn't they have a thing in 2023 for Jimmy's ring of honor? I swear I saw it
beast (8-Jan) : Though if they're legitimately trying to re-sign MM, then it makes sense.
beast (8-Jan) : Jerry Jones still hasn't put Jimmy Johnson in the Ring of Honor, but he's in the NFL's Hall of Fame, Jones is petty
Mucky Tundra (8-Jan) : Unless the Cowboys are planning an extension, seems kinda petty
beast (8-Jan) : Cowboys denied Bears request
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : From what I'm reading, MM is under contract through the 14th of January; after that he's free game
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : McCarthy let go or not extended??
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Chicago Bears have asked the Dallas Cowboys permission to interview Mike McCarthy for head coaching vacancy
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : The winners page that is
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : I was not hoping for that. It messes up the page lol
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3.
beast (6-Jan) : Thank you, and I was really opening we were going to get 4 or more tied for the top 3
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats beast on 2024 !
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : congrats porky on winning 2023 pick'em! (oops sorry)
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : Packers have $60M+ of 2025 cap space on paper TODAY.
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Missed FG into a Lions TD; that'll do pig, that'll do
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : That might be it for the Vikings
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Oh so the refs do know what intentional grounding is
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : what the hell was that Goff?! Not much pressure and he just air mails it to Harrison
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : They really need to to get rid of the auto first down for illegal contact
Martha Careful (6-Jan) : watching the Vikings and Lions it's understandable why they swept the Packers. So much better product
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Even when GB got pressure he was throwing darts; vs no pressure on that last pass he just air mails an open guy
Zero2Cool (6-Jan) : didn't have guys in his face ... pressure makes difference
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Where was this Darnold vs GB?
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : BALL DON'T LIE
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : how was that not a safety? Goff throws it at an offensive lineman
Mucky Tundra (6-Jan) : Zero, I thought that was a given! ;)
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
5h / Around The NFL / beast

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

8-Jan / Around The NFL / beast

7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

7-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

7-Jan / Fantasy Sports Talk / Zero2Cool

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

6-Jan / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

6-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

5-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.